JTC1/SC22/WG21
N3495

Doc. No.: N3495
Date: 2012-12-07
Reply to: Ariane van der Steldt <ariane@stack.nl>
Title: inplace realloc
I: Index
I: Index:
II: Introduction
III: Motivation and scope
IV: Impact on the standard
V: Design decisions
V.1: Design decision: ASLR
VI: Technical specifications
VII: Acknowledgements
II: Introduction:
The C language has realloc(), which allows shrinking and growing of memory previously allocated using malloc().
The C++ language has allocators (refering to the concept, rather than specifically std::allocator), which allow specialization of allocation, but lose the advantages offered by realloc.
While actually moving memory, as offered by realloc, is often not possible in c++, realloc may extend or shrink without moving data, which is a useful addition to standard allocators.
III: Motivation and scope
The c++ library has several container types using allocators, while implementing shrink_to_fit().
Looking at std::allocator<> and std::allocator_traits<>, I can not find an allocator-supported function to implement this semantic, which suggests to me that either:
- libraries do not shrink-to-fit at all (a quick glance suggested to me that nop would be a valid implementation),
- libraries implement their own internal support in std::allocator, disabling custom allocators from enabling this behaviour.
A bit more esoteric: I work on a network library using udp and serialization, where the code is (unfortunately) unable to know in advance the size of data buffers.
Without the 'inplace realloc' (i.e. this proposal) I am unable to shrink/grow the buffers when required, requiring me to implement custom allocators for specifically this purpose.
Both issues can be solved using the current allocators, but:
- the solution may require allocating new storage and copying over each element, invalidation iterators (and other pointers) to this data,
- in the case of network buffers, growing data would always require a copy (memcpy), while disabling use of realloc for any allocator.
This proposal requires a single function addition to std::allocator_traits, allows optional implementation of an additional function to any allocator, may (optionally/implementation-defined?) require an addition to std::allocator.
IV: Impact on the standard
The proposal requires at least the addition of a new static member function to std::allocator_traits.
The function would be called 'alloc_resize' (XXX name):
template<typename Alloc>
class std::allocator_traits
{
public:
... /* Existing definition. */
static pointer
alloc_resize(Alloc& a, pointer p, size_type n_cur, size_type n_new)
{
/*
* p, having n_cur elements,
* would change to having n_new elements.
* If the allocator does not support this,
* std::bad_alloc() is thrown.
*
* (p, n_cur) must refer to a previous allocation,
* or the behaviour is undefined.
*
* This function is implemented as:
* a.alloc_resize(p, n_cur, n_new) iff implemented by Alloc,
* or as
* throw std::bad_alloc() otherwise.
*/
return p;
}
};
As can be read from the above comment, any allocator a user (of the standard library) implements, may implement 'pointer alloc_resize(pointer, size_type n_cur, size_type n_new)'.
The proposal does not deal with std::allocator, for which implementing this function is implementation defined.
The proposal would require any container type using contiguous storage to use attempt the reallocation prior to the allocate()-move() semantics currently in use.
Existing users would be impacted minimally:
- the new function has a fallback to failure, so existing allocators not implementing this functionality will continue to function,
- the change to containers reduces copying of data on growth/shrink, which would only cause iterators not to be invalidated in cases where they may be otherwise,
- the change allows non-library-implementators to implement shrink_to_fit() for their collection types, without digging into internals of a specific implementation of the standard library,
= existing allocators continue to work (provided the library properly uses std::allocator_traits to access them) regardless of an update to the new container.
V: Design decisions
The decision to throw std::bad_alloc on failure:
- PRO: reduces the chance of users (of std::allocator_traits/any allocator) to mis-use the function (i.e. forgetting to check the return is not going to be a common bug),
- CON: creates an exception path which could be taken quite often, depending on allocator implementation and memory pressure.
The decision to implement this functionality:
- PRO: microsoft has a similar function for their heaps
- PRO: realloc, in the non-memory-moving-case has the same semantics
- PRO: reduces an O(n) operation to O(1) with certian probability (see below).
- CON: requires yet another function that will provide a default implementation if the allocator does not provide it, in which case it would always trigger an exception
but note that the fallback definition would be inline and a good compiler could detect this and optimize the throw/catch away
Actually a big counter-argument, which I suspect is the cause for this not being in the c++11 standard in the first place:
- CON: exact semantics not supported by the C standard, nor in new[]/delete[] operators, making an implementation for std::allocator hard.
The decision for the name:
- PRO: critter needs a name
- CON: something I came up with at random
I rejected realloc (since the C library function has different semantics).
I rejected realloc_inplace (while the semantics are exactly the same, I didn't like it in favour of (rejected) reallocate_inplace (see next line).
I rejected reallocate_inplace (since it is a very long name)
I prefered alloc_resize, since the function is basically resizing (shrinking or growing) an existing allocation.
Functionality is my main motivation, the name is secondary and proposals for better names are welcome (I suck at functionality names). :P
V.1: Design decision: ASLR
Most current allocators nowadays use ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) which likely causes gaps between two allocations adjecent to each other in terms of addresses.
Secondly, existing allocations being released create or extend the gap (free memory) between two concurrent allocations.
The above two mechanics should bias alloc_resize() into more often succeeding than failing for small (n_new - n_cur).
The case where an allocation is shrunk, should rarely fail (depending on the implementation ofcourse) since the act of freeing a part of an allocation would yield a portion of free space.
With ASLR, the tail section thus freeed, would make subsequent allocations easier, since the free space after the current allocation has grown.
VI: Technical specifications
XXX not the actual wording in the final standard, mostly intended to illustrate the proposed semantics.
std::allocator may or may not implement std::allocator<T>::alloc_resize(pointer p, size_type n_cur, size_type n_new).
If the combination (p, n_cur) does not reflect an existing allocation, an std::invalid_argument exception will be thrown.
If n_cur is zero or n_new is zero, an std::invalid_argument exception will be thrown.
Any other allocator defining alloc_resize may opt to produce undefined behaviour where std::allocator would throw std::invalid_argument.
std::allocator_traits will define std::allocator_traits<Alloc> { static pointer alloc_resize(Alloc& alloc, pointer p, size_type n_cur, size_type n_new); }.
std::allocator_traits::alloc_resize will invoke alloc().alloc_resize(p, n_cur, n_new) if Alloc defines this function.
Otherwise, it will throw std::bad_alloc.
Containers implementing shrink_to_fit() will attempt to resize their allocations to the minimum required, by invoking std::allocator_traits<Alloc>::alloc_resize().
Failures will be ignored.
Containers growing or shrinking their storage, will attempt to resize using std::allocator_traits<Alloc>::alloc_resize(), failing that, they will revert to their current behaviour on these function calls.
VII: Acknowledgements
Currently, this is just me thinking this is a good idea and I did not find a similar proposal on isocpp.org.
However, a word of thanks to isocpp.org for existing, may be in order, since without this website, this proposal would simply live in my personal c++ library only.
Consequently, a word of thanks to 'Herb Sutter', whose talk directed me to the isocpp.org site. And ofcourse anyone and everyone making this site possible in the first place!
(Yeah, I'll remove the above and add actual people if I get feedback.)